Leg-iron tells us that Theresa May has announced that there is going to be an investigation into paedophilia, not just in Westminster,

To placate the masses, they are also going to investigate the NHS, the BBC and the Church (just the one religion, naturally) where they will find plenty of big name scapegoats to take the drones’ attention away from them.

It’s what they do. Like creating new Acts containing a variety of themes and hoping nobody notices the really intrusive or offensive part.

So yes, I’m sure this insider “enquiry” will find a few NHS doctors who have groped children and some more dead or aging weirdos employed by the BBC and some nonces-in-frocks in “the Church”. Continue reading →

A very interesting, but highly contentious, issue reared its ugly head yesterday as Rolf Harris was convicted of 12 counts of indecent assault.

What’s extremely contentious about the outcome is that he was charged under the sexual offences Act of 1956, because the offences happened at a time of old legislation. Basically, if he’d have done the same things now he would have received a heftier sentence, because cultural evolution has shifted people’s perspective and tolerance on crimes like paedophilia, with penalties now being severer.

Having had a night’s sleep on this, I don’t think it’s right that someone should receive a shorter sentence that has been matched to the legislative time of the crime(s). It seems clear to me that past crimes should be penalised according to the present legislation (and I mean this generally speaking, not just taking into account Rolf Harris’s situation).

Given that legislative measures and acts of jurisprudence are built on a cultural evolution of the increased wisdom and revisions of human beings over time, I’m of the view that sentencing for any crime should be administered according to the legislation of the time of the trial, not the offence – otherwise it rather undermines the perceived wisdom that went into the revision processes of jurisprudence over time.

My friend Mark made an interesting point; he warned that it could set a dangerous precedent. He says: “If we raised the age of consent to 18 we could then punish all those who had sex at Continue reading →

It will be intriguing to see whether, when the law that will be drafted and passed (as you and I all know instinctively that it will be) it will also apply to women posting pictures of their ex-boyfriends…for example, “doing this or that”, or “wearing something from my lingerie-collection”, and so on, and so on.
I bet you all £5,000,000,000 (each) that it won’t. Only “women will be protected” by this new, groundbreaking and far-reaching rectification of a crying injustice emanating from Tory Cuts, and that tragically and psychologically affects and damages millions of British women every year”….

You see…I can bullshit all the politically-correct stuff with the best of the Frankfurt School themselves. In fact, I can simulate the stuff better than they can, like Michael Caine imitating himself. He even sounded better than he would if he was acting… As indeed he did once on the “live” wire-less Tele-vision.

You can take the bet or not as it pleases you. (Form an orderly queue to drop your bank-transfer-notifications into my hat when the time comes, plus any “bearer-bond” Gold-Deposit-certificates that you care to adduce as part-payments.

I feel pretty safe making that monetary estimate of my takings.

Since human beings are Free Individuals, with Free Will (given by God of course…) nobody can force them to be deliberately photographed in any sort of position or act whatsoever. If they did agree, then it’s their lookout. If they didn’t and the photos were “made”, then a different crime, already very well understood and legally covered, was simultaneously committed, and there is no need for a “new law”.

It’s all very well to hail a small UKIP victory against the outer barbed-wire-entanglements of the British-Political EnemyClass. We know how to fight these people now, and in the fullness of time a regaining of a semblance of liberty is possible. Things can never be the same as they were, before the 20th/21st-century-Endarkenment irretrievably marred many things that were good.

In the meantime there are some other really dangerous and wicked people out there, like this “Lierre Keith” impersonation of an evil droid in androgynous form from the Planet Tharg. It’s probabl that most of you people here know what’s going on in most Universities in the Anglosphere. For example, even in one famous and ancient Scottish University, about as far from London as it’s possible to get without falling off, there’s a module in the B.Mus. honours course covering “Music and Gender in contemporary society”.

A ray of dull sunshine is that this nonsense is probably not going on in universities in ChindoJapanIndonesIndoBrazilia: therefore it’s possible that some slight remnant epiphanic image of what Western Liberal Civilisation might have been like will be preserved.

There are no words naughty enough to convey the exasperation and – dare I say it? – sheer depression that comes over some of us, when we see the ongoing destruction of the entire civilisation that was kind enough to give birth to those that wish its death.

I do not know, but I believe that in many “firms” and “institutions” the use of the internet is very restricted anyway. A few years ago, I asked the Older Boy if as an experiment he could log onto the LA’s main site containing all our publications but not the blog, via school computers (this was a year-11 boy): he found that he could not.

The kinds of people that go to Starbucks to “use wifi” are probably not the sorts of people who we (a) either want to convert or (b) would even want themselves to give our worldview even a second of the time of day. Worse still are the ones with (a) no hand-luggage while also are (b) knowingly carrying a cardboard coffeebucket about on the sidewalks of the the public roads.

On balance, I am not inclined to give in to these effing bastards. Once they have taken away the use of f***, c***, shitbag leftoid, scumbag fascist leftoNazi, GramscoFabiaNazi and the like from us, they will start taking other words from the hinterlands of these.

They stole “nigger” from the English Language last week while our backs were turned for five minutes: the scumbag thieving shoplifting moocher turds.

Subject nevertheless to a ruling in due course by the Director, I would say that I think we draw a line in the sand, and let them ban us.

The Chinese will be coming up with proxy-servers by which we can be accessed from universal wifi, which I am sure people’s phones etc will be able to get without having to lick Starbucks’ arses.

I couldn’t resist this. Mainly because I have read all or most of the works of the Director’s dear and close friend Richard Blake. Blake writes in clear and disconcertingly-real and presently-verifiable ways, about the duplicitous political-classes of the various nations in his stories. Today’s subject is not really Clifford but the British-PoliticalEnemyClass, and how it views its servants and running-dogs and the like.

Max Clifford’s “career” would not have existed in a classical-liberal-minimal-statist civilisation, in which was a high degree of citizen-curiosity and critical-analysis-ability of situations presented to them. Indeed, many such situations, such as “married footballist and “family-role-model” beds good-time-girl met in club” would not have _been_ presented to such a population: why? Because they would find it (a) unremarkable and (b) nobody else’s effing business, being a private matter between the footballist, his wife, and his pickup.

The pretty young woman, having had the footballist-family-man-and-role-model for-youth, for a little time, would have got nowhere in news terms, for nobody would give a stuff. Young footballist-males are chosen for their prowess on the “field”, which means also that, like Gladiators, they may well also have an insatiable appetite for pretty and submissive young women, to f***.

Islam may also have a take on this, but I cannot do it now here on this post, and that will wait for another time and an interpretation (carefully-guided by a “scholar” – I have one in tow for me to do it. He is a Hafiz, even – this one.) And it will be about what the Koran says about what gentlemen are allowed to do to ladies, and why, and under what conditions. (He’s memorised the entire Koran in at least one literary tradition: that is what “Hafiz” means.)

Therefore Clifford must have been created, as I argue on GUIDO (see paste below) to further the destroying-aims of the BritishPolitical-EnemyClass. To see them therefore trashing him is almost funny, if it was not terrifying. I think of the scene in the great arena in Continue reading →

It does not usually fall to me, to comment on such matters: this is because of today’s PuritaNazi “guilt by association” meme, as in what used to happen to people that even just _/looked at/_ Witches that were on their way to being burned.

I’m not sure that I ought even to be opening my mouth here, as any sort of comment can be so dangerous, and taken the wrong way can lead to death.

I’m hoping that I shan’t get dragged by the happily-screaming-mob into the fire-tumbril merely by referring obliquely to the bound-and-gagged man, as he is drawn past me on a ground-hurdle, spat on, and pelted with dogshit.

Being alive and a young man in the 1950s, 60 and 70s meant this thing, amoong others. You _knew_ (we all knew, we weren’t stupid you know) that to simply _be_ a disk-jockey, and (specially) _on the radio and the telly!_ was to be able to _get_ all the girls that you could possibly handle. They literally _threw themselves_ at these people. Being Men Of The World, we’d advise our teenage female counterparts “not to go with that fella” (I’m not implying here that it would have been Continue reading →